STATE WATER BOARD TAFF WORKPLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF …

STATE WATER BOARD STAFF

WORKPLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF

NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES

Rik Rasmussen, State Water Resources

Control Board

Nutrient Objectives Stakeholder

Advisory Group Meeting

June 13, 2014

Sacramento, CA

WELCOME TO THE NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP MEETING

Goals:

• Water Board staff has a plan for nutrient objective development

–We want to your feedback on that plan

• Stakeholders need to be organized in order to effectively

provide feedback to us through out the process

–Today we will help you to get organized and pick representatives

• We will be putting together a Science Panel to provide ongoing

technical review

–Today we want to get your feedback on the process and desired attributes of the Panel

–Provide instructions for providing feedback on the candidates

• Introductions, meeting goals

• Discussion of State Water Board workplan for nutrient objective

development

–Overarching plan (Rik Rasmussen, State Water Board)

–Overview of technical elements (Martha Sutula, SCCWRP)

• Stakeholder organization and governance (Brock Bernstein)

• Science Panel Process and Selection Criteria (Martha Sutula,

SCCWRP)

• Next steps and timing (Rik Rasmussen, State Water Board)

AGENDA (10 AM – 3 PM)

NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES– WHY NOW?

• Adverse effects of nutrient pollution are evident across California’s

landscape as well as the nation

–Well documented examples in streams, lakes, rivers and coastal waters

• Nutrient controls have largely not been implemented in California

–Few of California NDPES permits have nitrogen limits

–Ag Waiver programs have focused on monitoring, not on load reductions

• EPA has been pushing for Numeric Nutrient Criteria

NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES NEED A DIFFERENT

APPROACH THAN THAT OF TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

• Nutrients are required to support life

– How do we establish the correct

nutrient balance?

• Direct effects (e.g. toxicity) are often

less important than indirect effects

– Indirect effects occur at much lower

levels than toxic effects

• Ambient concentrations can give false

positives or negatives

• Need a different approach

THREE BASIC APPROACHES TO NUTRIENT

OBJECTIVES

EPA guidance on nutrient criteria development suggests

three basic approaches (EPA 2001)

• Reference

• Empirical stress-response

• Causal modeling

REFERENCE APPROACH

• Characterize distributions of nutrient in “minimally disturbed”

waterbodies

• Choose nutrient concentrations at some statistical percentile of

reference waterbodies

75th Percentile of Florida

Panhandle Reference

Streams

EMPIRICAL STRESS-RESPONSE APPROACH

• Identify biological response indicator of interest (e.g. algal

biomass)

• Analyze statistical relationships between nutrient concentrations

and response

Correlation Between

Chl a and TP in

Alkaline Lakes

SWRCB STAFF FAVOR CAUSE EFFECT APPROACH

• California’s version of this is coined as

“nutrient numeric endpoint (NNE)

approach”

• Consists of two major components

– Response indicators with numeric

endpoints for waterbody

assessment

– Models to link response indicator

numeric endpoints to nutrient

targets (e.g. permits, TMDLs, etc.)

Algae & Aquatic Plants

Dissolved Oxygen, pH

PREVIOUS WORK ON NUTRIENT

OBJECTIVES

• Water Board work has focused on streams

and lakes beginning in 2001

– Significant technical foundation

completed in 2006

– Since then focused on TMDL as case

studies and implementation guidance

– Initiated CEQA scoping in Fall 2011

• Funding science to support estuarine nutrient

WQOs since 2009

– That science is still ongoing

CEQA SCOPING IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL

WORK NEEDED

• New peer-reviewed science and additional data now

available for wadeable streams and lakes

• Not a traditional regulatory approach

– Need for stakeholder input and independent science

review throughout the process

STAFF HAS DEVELOPED A WORKPLAN TO MOVE

FORWARD ON NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES

Five Guiding Principals:

• The policy should address nutrient pollution and biostimulatory

substances and/or conditions.

Nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus)

And Organic Matter

Increased abundance of primary producers (e.g. algae) & heterotrophs

(e.g. bacteria

Altered Aquatic Life(e.g. Benthic and Algal Community Structure)

Altered DO and pH

NUTRIENTS AND BIOSTIMULATORY CONDITIONS

RESPONSE INDICATORS

Light Availability

Hydrology

Biological Communities

Temperature

Et al. Factors

STAFF HAS DEVELOPED A WORKPLAN TO MOVE

FORWARD ON NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES

Five Guiding Principals:

• The policy should address nutrient pollution and biostimulatory

substances and/or conditions.

• The state should develop narrative nutrient objectives with numeric

guidance.

• Numeric guidance should have a strong linkage to beneficial use.

• The state should have numeric guidance for all waterbody types.

• There should be statewide consistency with regional flexibility.

NUMERIC GUIDANCE WILL BE PHASED BY WATERBODY

TYPE

Phase I (2016): Establish narrative approach applicable to all

waterbodies and numeric guidance for wadeable streams

Phase II (2017): Lakes

Phase III: (2019): Estuaries and non-wadeable rivers

PHASE I: NARRATIVE OBJECTIVE AND NUMERIC

GUIDANCE FOR WADEABLE STREAMS

Phase I Tasks

1 Conceptual Approach, Waterbody Definition and

Classification

2 Conduct and Synthesize Science to Support Nutrient

Objectives in Wadeable Streams

3 Implementation Plan Development

4 Rulemaking

5 Outreach

6Training, Standardization, and Information Management

TASK 1: CONCEPTUAL APPROACH, WATERBODY

DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION

• Provides the problem statement for nutrient pollution and

biostimulatory conditions

• Lays out the options considered for development of nutrient

objectives

–How each option was explored in California

–Advantages and disadvantages of each

• Provides waterbody definitions and classification of habitat types

relevant for interpretation of numeric guidance

Key Products: Technical report and presentations

TASK 2: CONDUCT & SYNTHESIZE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT

NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES IN WADEABLE STREAMS

• Evaluate candidate ecological response indicators

• Conduct & synthesize science on thresholds at which indicators

support or adversely affect beneficial uses

• Summarize the distribution of these indicators in reference and

ambient sites across the State

• Develop models to support the linkage of response indicators to

nutrient management

• Identify technical considerations for implementation of numeric

guidance

Key Products: Technical reports and presentations

TASK 3: Implementation Plan Development

• Define how numeric guidance should be used in regulatory

programs

–Waterbody assessments and 303(d) listing

–Total maximum daily loads

–NPDES permitting and compliance

–Non-point sources, etc.

Key Products: Implementation guidance that includes draft language

relevant for each of the regulatory programs

TASK 4: Rulemaking

• Follow the legislatively defined public process of developing,

adopting, and implementing objectives

• Include public dissemination, review, and response process such

as:

–Public workshops

–Response to comments

– Informational meeting presentations

–State Water Board briefing

–California Environmental Quality Assessment (CEQA) document or equivalent

Key Products: Detailed staff report and proposed amendments to

the State Water Board’s Inland Surface Waters Plan

TASK 5: Outreach

• Conducted in accordance with the State Water Boards Public

Participation Plan

• The goal of this task is to actively reach out to stakeholders to

ensure that their ideas and concerns are fully considered

• Covers three important areas

–Transparency in development of policy

–Opportunity to voice their opinions about the relative merits of the possible approach(es)

–Technical aspects of the objectives should receive an independent and rigorous technical review

Key Products: 1) A Stakeholder Management Plan, 2) Facilitation

of Advisory Groups and 3) Meeting materials and summaries

STATEWIDE NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES PROGRAM:

ORGANIZATION

SWRCB

Regulatory

Advisory Group

Stakeholder

Advisory Group

Science Panel

Technical Team

Rik Rasmussen

Zane Poulson

Steve Camacho

Jacob Iverson Panel Chair, To

Be Determined

Martha Sutula,

Technical Lead

(SCCWRP)Brock Bernstein,

Facilitator

MEET THE TEAM

SWRCB

Regulatory

Advisory Group

Stakeholder

Advisory Group

Science Panel

Technical Team

TASK 6: TRAINING, STANDARDIZATION, AND

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

• Need to standardize:

– How to collect data with prescribed quality assurance

– How to interpret data with linkage to implementation guidance

• What we need:

–Standard Operating Procedures, and Quality Assurance Plans

–SWAMP standardized data transfer formats

• We are benefiting from investment in stream bioassessment

–A lot of this work has already been done

• We will assess what else is required for implementation

TIMING OF TASKS

Phase I Tasks Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

1 Conceptual Approach

2 Stream Science

3 Implementation

4 Rulemaking

5 Outreach

6 Standardization and IM

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

PLEASE SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS ON WATER BOARD WORK

PLAN BY

COB JULY 18, 2014

TO [email protected]



• Discussion of State Water Board workplan for nutrient objective

development

–Overarching plan (Rik Rasmussen)




SCCWRP)

• Next steps, timing of SAG meetings

OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL ELEMENTS

SUPPORTING WADEABLE STREAM NUMERIC

GUIDANCE

Martha Sutula, Ph.D.

Principal Scientist, Biogeochemistry Department

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project

Authority (SCCWRP)

PHASE I: NARRATIVE OBJECTIVE AND NUMERIC

GUIDANCE FOR WADEABLE STREAMS

Phase I Tasks

1 Conceptual Approach, Waterbody Definition and

Classification

2 Conduct and Synthesize Science to Support Nutrient

Objectives in Wadeable Streams

3 Implementation Plan Development

4 Rulemaking

5 Outreach

6Training, Standardization, and Information Management

THESE TASKS HAVE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS

THIS PRESENTATION FOCUSES ON TASK 2

GOAL OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION

• Give you sufficient detail to allow you to comment on the

State Water Board work plan

• Not enough detail to allow you to comment on the technical

workplan

– Meant to be an orientation

• Opportunity for focused feedback on the technical

workplan will happen at the next stakeholder meeting

– We will give you a written workplan in advance to

review

WATER BOARD STAFF FAVOR CAUSE EFFECT APPROACH

• Coined as “nutrient numeric endpoint

(NNE) approach”

• Consists of two major components

– Response indicators with numeric

endpoints for waterbody

assessment

– Models to link response indicator

numeric endpoints to nutrient

targets (e.g. permits, TMDLs, etc.)

Algae & Aquatic Plants

Dissolved Oxygen, pH

MODELS TO LINK TO NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT: TWO

BOOK ENDS

Basic

Models

Calibrated

Numerical

Models

Increasing Precision, Accuracy, and Utility for Scenario Analysis

Increasing Data Requirements, Cost

• Calibrated numerical models

– Site-specific, high precision, requires considerable expertise and

expensive data

• Basic models

– Regional or statewide, lower precision, low cost and expertise

STATE OFFERING BASIC MODELS TO SET “DEFAULT”

NUTRIENT TARGETS

• Translates response indicator numeric endpoints to site-

specific nutrient targets

– Accounts for site-specific factors that control response

to nutrients (canopy cover, temperature, etc.)

• “Default” nutrient targets resulting from model are a

starting point for conversations on permits and TMDLs

• Flexibility offered to stakeholders to develop more

sophisticated models if required

• Models available for wadeable stream and lakes (Tetra

Tech 2006)

Nutrient-Response

Models

Identify Indicators

Construct assessment

framework

ID regulatory endpoints

Link Response Indicator

Targets to Nutrient

Management

(Focused on Basic

Models First)

CORE ELEMENTS OF NNE SCIENCE PLAN

WILL FOCUS ON BASIC MODELS FIRST

Develop conceptual models

Response Indicators

and Regulatory

Endpoints

(Condition Assessment)

NNE Assessment

Framework

TECHNICAL WORKPLAN FOR WADEABLE STREAM

NUMERIC GUIDANCE

Goals:

1. Identify appropriate response indicators representative of

beneficial uses

2. Identify thresholds of adverse effects of response indicators on

aquatic life to support decision on regulatory endpoints

– Relative to reference and ambient concentrations of those

indicators in wadeable streams

3. Develop basic models for wadeable streams

4. Identify key technical elements addressing implementation

WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE INDICATORS

IN WADEABLE STREAMS?

Nutrients

(Nitrogen,

Phosphorus)

Algal Abundance and

Organic Matter

Altered Aquatic Life

(Fish, Benthic and Algal

Community Structure)

Altered DO and pH

Indirect Effects

Indirect Effects

Direct Effects

• Linkage to aquatic life

beneficial uses

• Affected by other

stressors

• Linked to aquatic life

and other Beneficial

Uses (e.g. REC2)

• Mechanistic link to

nutrients

• Cheaper to measure

• Already in Basin Plan

Response Indicators

TEST STRENGTH OF STRESS-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS

ALONG BIOLOGICAL CONDITION GRADIENT

Graphic of biological condition gradient

Stressor (e.g. Algal Abundance, Nutrients)

Aqua

tic

Life

Measu

re (e.g

.

inve

rtebra

te a

nd A

lgal IB

I

Metr

ics

STREAM BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM PROVIDES ROBUST

DATASET FOR STRESS-RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Available data

from combined

surveys (>1,000

wadeable stream

reaches)

Includes both

ambient and

reference sites

Narrow down 10+

algal abundance

available

HOW DO WE IDENTIFY THRESHOLDS? TWO

APPROACHES

Stressor Gradient

Aqua

tic

Resp

ons

e

Changepoint Detection

Let the Data Speak for Itself Identify quantitative thresholds for

an indicator of beneficial use

Threshold = Science; Endpoint= Policy Decision

SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION FOR WADEABLE STREAM

NUMERIC GUIDANCE

Goals:


beneficial uses

2. Identify thresholds of adverse effects of response indicators

on aquatic life to support decision on regulatory endpoints





STATE ALREADY HAS BASIC MODEL FOR WADEABLE

STREAMS: NNE BENTHIC BIOMASS SPREADSHEET TOOL

Two basic types of model:

Empirical (Dodds et al.

1997 and 2002):

Mechanistic (River and Stream

Water Quality Model; QUAL2K):

[inorganic

+ organic

nutrients]

• stream depth

• stream velocity

•water

temperature

• canopy closure

•month sampled

• latitude

•days of accrual

(optional)

predicted

biomass (chla,

AFDM)

First step is to validate them and consider refinements…

RECENTLY COMPLETED EPA-ORD STUDY BEGINS TO

ADDRESS THREE OF FOUR TECHNICAL GOALS

Goals:

1. Identify appropriate response indicators





3. Evaluate the performance of the Benthic Biomass Spreadsheet

Tool for wadeable streams and recommend avenues for

refinement

CONTEXT AND STATUS OF EPA-ORD REPORT

• Research project conducted in collaboration with EPA-ORD and

SCCWRP

– Not meant to give the final word on neither thresholds nor

basic models!

• Additional analysis and synthesis is planned to address other

aspects

– This will be detailed in the technical work plan

• Report currently in expert peer review

• Expecting final version to be available for public distribution in

early August

WHAT WILL THE PRODUCTS LOOK LIKE– TARGETED FOR

SPRING 2015

• Synthesis of appropriate response indicators, thresholds relative

to reference and ambient condition, and options for how to get to

default nutrient targets

• Supporting technical reports

– EPA-ORD ReSERV

– Supplemental analyses to support decisions on numeric

endpoints for response indicators

– Basic models of nutrient-algal abundance

– And others…

SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION FOR WADEABLE STREAM

NUMERIC GUIDANCE

Goals:


beneficial uses







– This work element is not in contract

TECHNICAL ELEMENTS ADDRESSING IMPLEMENTATION

Two Flavors:

1. Key technical products needed to ease policy into

implementation

– Training, Standardization, and Information Management

(e.g. Task 6)

2. Science needed to address key data gaps identified during

implementation discussions

– Science plan should evolve to capture these needs

PARTING THOUGHTS ON TECHNICAL WORKPLAN…

• Today was meant to give you sufficient detail to allow you to

comment on the State Water Board work plan

• Not enough detail to allow you to comment on the technical

workplan

– Meant to be an orientation

• Focused feedback on the technical workplan will happen at

the next stakeholder meeting

– We will give you the written technical workplan and EPA-

ORD report in advance to review

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS?

Martha Sutula

www.sccwrp.org

[email protected]

714-755-3222



• Discussion of SWRCB workplan for nutrient objective

development





SCCWRP)


OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER

ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE

Brock Bernstein, Ph.D.

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDER GROUP

• Based on experience with other statewide stakeholder groups

• Foster transparent process

• Provide review and input to State Board, technical team,

Scientific Advisory Committee

• Address both scientific and implementation issues

• Communicate information to and from constituencies

• Examine sources and implications of disagreement

• Goal is NOT to reach consensus

POTENTIAL ISSUE AREAS

• Agriculture

• Environmental protection

• Land managers

• Municipalities

• POTWs

• Resource managers

• Stormwater: municipal, industrial

• Tribes

• Water agencies

• Others? (Builders, fire fighting, hatcheries, mining, mosquito abatement, pesticide manufacturers, recreation)

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

• Primary and alternate for each issue area

– Responsible for communication and outreach to

constituencies

– One or the other should attend all (or most) meetings

• Meetings open to all other interested parties

• All attendees participate equally

• Information provided to all interested parties

CONTACT INFORMATION

Dr. Brock Bernstein

805-646-8369

[email protected]




development





SCCWRP)


STATEWIDE NUTRIENT OBJECTIVES PROGRAM:

ORGANIZATION

SWRCB

Regulatory

Advisory Group

Stakeholder

Advisory Group

Science Panel

Technical Team

ROLE OF SCIENCE PANEL

• Provide independent technical review of policy development

products

– Includes the workplan and individual tasks

• Provide critical scientific insight based on extensive real

world experience

– Data gaps, alternative approaches, limits of interpretation

– Potential management implications

• Like the SAG, their role is not approval

– Its advisory

CONTEXT

• Vetted criteria for Science Panel previously with stakeholder

groups for SF Bay and other estuaries

• Expanding work to freshwater habitats

– Need to expand the expertise on panel

– Allow involve new stakeholders in process

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FROM STATE

WATER BOARD

• Keep relatively small

– Four members

• Needs to cover streams, lakes and estuaries

• Ensure no conflicts of interest

– Try to choose from outside California to avoid potential

conflicts

• Pick necessary disciplines for representation

– Provide optional candidates for each

PROCESS

• Technical Team lead (SCCWRP) identifies candidates, based on desired attributes of SP panel members

• Representatives of the Regulatory Advisory Group (RAG) and SAG:

– Review nominated candidates

– Representatives have right to reject individual candidates

– Rank the candidates in the preferred order, and tell us if you really dislike a candidate

• Technical Team lead (SCCWRP) summarizes stakeholder input and provides to SWRCB staff

• SWRCB staff makes final decision

DESIRED ATTRIBUTES

• Four panel members, internationally or nationally recognized in one of four

areas:

– Nutrient and organic biogeochemistry and/or ecology with experience in

management of eutrophication in estuaries;

– Nutrient and organic biogeochemistry and/or ecology with experience in

management of eutrophication in freshwater habitats;

– Development of statistical and computational models of nutrients,

environmental variables and ecological response;

– Creation of nutrient-related water quality criteria and/or numeric targets

and implementation of management actions to address eutrophication.

• No conflict of interest

– Has not conducted significant work in California freshwater and estuarine

habitats that would likely be subjected to technical review

CANDIDATES- ESTUARINE ECOLOGIST/

BIOGEOCHEMIST

• Walter Boynton, Professor, University of

Maryland

• Ivan Valiela, Professor, Boston University

• Robert Twilley, Professor, Louisiana State

University

• Robert Diaz, Professor, Virginia Institute of

Marine Science

CANDIDATES- FRESHWATER ECOLOGIST/

BIOGEOCHEMIST

• Hans Pearl, Professor, University of North

Carolina

• Judith Meyer, Professor, University of Georgia

• Robert (Jan) Stevenson, Professor, Michigan State

University

• Stephen Carpenter, Professor, University of

Wisconsin

CANDIDATES- MODELER

• Ken Reckhow, Professor Emeritus, Duke University

• Dominic DiToro, Professor, University of Delaware

• Victor Bierman, LimnoTech Inc.

• Don Scavia, Professor, University of Michigan

CANDIDATES- NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

• Richard Batiuk, Assistant Director, US EPA

Chesapeake Bay Program

• Holly Greening, Executive Director, Tampa Bay

Estuary Program

• Paul Stacey, Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection

• Ephraim King, Former Director of EPA OST

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

• You gave us feedback on process and desired attributes

today

• You give us recommendations for candidates by June 25,

2014

• SCCWRP will send out new candidates by June 30, 2014

• Submit candidate ranks (and let me know if there is

anyone you have an issue with, if needed) by COB July

18, 2014

FEEDBACK?

• Comments on process and desired attributes?

• Comments on candidates at this point?




development





SCCWRP)


SAG INFORMATIONAL WEBINAR

JULY 7, 2014, 9:30 AM-12:30 PM PST

• Make sure that interested stakeholders understand how to get

involved in the process

• Same content presented today

• If you are here, no need to attend again

NEXT STEPS AND TIMING OF SAG MEETINGS

• Late Summer 2014- SAG meeting

– Presentation on EPA-ORD ReSERV study findings

– Presentation of proposed technical workplan

– Stakeholder presentation of feedback on technical workplan

• Early Fall 2014–SAG meeting

– Presentation of revised technical workplan

– Brainstorming of implementation issues to address in policy

• Late Fall 2014– Science Panel meeting

– Presentation of state of science and proposed workplan

– Stakeholder presentation of issues

• Early 2015– SAG meeting

– Technical Team Response to Science Panel comments

– Beginning of focused discussion of implementation issues

STATE WATER BOARD TAFF WORKPLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF …

Documents